"GREENING" THE U.S. MILITARY
The first step to solving a problem is recognizing there is a problem, and the U.S. Military has begun to do just that. In Reenergizing America’s Defense, the Pew Project has recognized a large slew of sustainability problems facing the Military, as well as their linked associations. This matrix of sustainability problems, affecting not only the environment but the economy and national security as well, presents a long road ahead to a solution.
The second step, therefore, is recognizing that for multiple problems, there must be multiple solutions. Inherently, “no single solution can make a considerable impact” on a large number of problems. In order to “Go Fix” the matrix of problems facing the U.S. Military today, we must recognize that every small step is one step closer to reaching our goals, even if it is not perfect. It is solutions at a vast variety of scales and levels of implementation, as well as the addition of all these small steps, that will eventually get us to the infamous “perfect solution.”
“Energy, security, economics, climate change – these things are connected. … it’s a system of systems. It’s very complex.” - Retired Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, former Army chair of staff and chairman, CNA Military Advisory Board
When did Congress first require the Department of Defense (DoD) to consider the potential effects of climate change on future military missions? Not until 2008. The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act required things such as assessing the risks of climate change, updating defense plans based on these assessments, and developing capabilities to reduce future impacts. The first document published in response to this mandate was the Quadrennial Defense Review Report on February 1, 2010, which addressed “the serious national security challenges presented by climate change and our current energy posture.” Research has led to recognition of a large matrix of problems facing the military, beginning with huge energy burdens and cycling to possible national security risks and economic crises.
So What’s the Problem? |
· DoD accounts for nearly 80% of the U.S. government’s total energy consumption
o 75% is liquid fuels that power aircraft, ships, combat vehicles, and forward deployed generators · Consumes more than 300,000 barrels of oil per day
o 25% is electricity to run facilities and bases · Operation of ~600,000 buildings using more than 3.8 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year · About 70% of the tonnage delivered to an Army battlefield is fuel and water-related · DoD’s official energy budget in 2008 was $20 billion, but this doesn’t include the “fully burdened cost of fuel” · The Army uses about 880 million gallons of fuel every year · The Navy, with 75% of total energy usage from sea operation and 35% for shore operations, uses 25% of DoD’s total use of petroleum · The Air Force spends about $10 million a day on energy and consumes 2.5 billion gallons of aviation fuel a year
As the list goes on and on, and the stakeholders in these problems are many. Not only is the military, and therefore the government, affected by these problems, but also the businesses and citizens who pay taxes to help fund these projects. Additionally, the citizens will also be affected if these problems do lead to national security risks or resource wars. With such a large energy use, the Military has the ability to have a significant impact on the overall environmental footprint. To move forward, the Military will have to improve within its own infrastructure, as well as work with outside businesses, so begin making small steps toward a smaller carbon “bootprint” [Reenergizing America’s Defense].
STEP 2 | FINDING THE SOLUTIONS [there’s not just one] Obviously, there is not one simple solution to this long list of problems, and we can’t expect that we will ever find one. Instead, we must look for a variety of small solutions targeted at specific problems. While things like reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy are technically solutions, they don’t really help move forward in solving explicit problems. More detailed, targeted solutions that have a step-by-step approach are much more likely to succeed, and that is the current strategy the Military intends to employ. Each branch of the Military has their own present initiatives, aimed at the same common goals of decreasing energy usage while stabilizing security risks. While many of these initiatives may still be stuck on paper, there are a few small-scale examples of solutions that really work that are already in place.
Implemented Solution 1 | Nellis Air Force Base
Nellis Airforce Base is located just outside of Las Vegas, Nevada, and is currently home to the largest photovoltaic array in the Americas. Of the 140 acres of land, 33 acres were built over a capped landfill, land that would otherwise be unusable. The 72,000 solar panels provide 28% of the base’s power, saving $83,000 per month and 24,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. The public/private partnership features panels from four different companies, each using the data acquired to improve their products [Solar Array].
Utilizing the large areas of flat, open ground for a solar array at Nellis is an excellent example of a solution to energy problems. The desert climate prevents the need for regular cleaning, and the strong solar radiation at this location allows for on-site production of renewable energy credits. Large amounts of land are currently necessary, however, and solar still does not provide the base with 100% of its energy. Yet, the photovoltaic array is one step toward reducing the base’s dependence on the civilian electrical grid, and there is still room to improve.
Implemented Solution 2 | China Lake Geothermal Plant
The Navy also has a renewable energy program evident in the China Lake Geothermal Plant, part of the Naval Air Weapons Center in California. It has been operational since the 1980s and is able to generate nearly twenty times the electricity of the Nellis array. The Marines’ long term goal is to reach “net zero” energy for all of their bases [Defense Sustainability]. Obviously, there are some problems with this solution, as it has not been widely implemented at bases across the country, but it is still a renewable energy alternative being tested on a small-scale that may someday be ready for large-scale implementation.
Implemented Solution 3 | Project Eskimo
“The aim of Project Eskimo was to cover 79 temporary structures, such as containerized living units and tents, with spray-foam insulation, thus cutting down tremendously on air conditioning and heating costs.” Implemented in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, 40-75% energy savings were produced. Fiscally, the project reached its break-even point in less than 180 days, and has saved over $194 million to date. There are plans to expand this simple solution to an additional 9 million square feet of temporary structures throughout Iraq. Savings are not just measured in dollars, but also in gallons of fuel and fully-burdened costs, such as the potential lives saved by transporting less fuel. [Defense Sustainability] Such a simple solution may lead to other advancements within the same field and has implications much larger than straightforward dollars and cents. While there are often a matrix of problems related to sustainability, solutions such as Project Eskimo have a matrix of solution implications, such as economic, environmental, political, and human well-being [Defense Sustainability].
Proposed Solutions | A Variety of Scales
While the above were examples of small scale solutions already implemented by the Military, there are also a very large number of possible solutions that have been recommended by a variety of sources. From the Army’s transition to 4,000 electric vehicles over the next 3 years to the Navy’s testing of algae and camelina-based biofuels for use in jet aircraft to the Air Force’s proposed energy awareness training and educational materials for all its members, there are many good solutions being developed [Reenergizing America’s Defense]. Five additional recommendations were made by Global Green in Defense Sustainability, including:
1. Implement the fully burdened cost of fuel
2. Develop on-site, long-term domestic renewable energy projects
3. Increase forward operating base energy efficiency
4. Integrate tactical fuel efficiency technologies
5. Optimize the use of unmanned vehicles
These are just some examples of proposed solutions by individuals and groups who are beginning to understand the importance of solving one problem at a time, and solving it in a variety of ways. As the Marine Energy Assessment Team says, “What can be measured, can be managed” [Defense Sustainability].
CONCLUSION |
As you can see, there is no one “right” solution to the sustainability problems of the United States Military. In terms of the “Go Fix It” mentality, I am proposing that the solution to Greening the U.S. Military is to recognize and accept that there isn’t one solution. Instead, the solution lies in the infinite number of possibilities that can be applied to every aspect of the problem. While numbers and figures on energy usage can merely be depressing, it is revitalizing to see that steps are being taken to correct these problems. There are certainly issues moving many of the initiatives beyond paper, but at least the paper step is recognizing the existence of the problem.
In conclusion, I would simply like to remark on a few additional solutions and thoughts I realized while researching this topic. Each of these could probably be turned into its own research presentation, and so I would simply like to put some ideas out there for future consideration.
· We must learn to learn from both our successes and our failures, and to see the potential in both · Viewing the problem in a different light: focus on increasing efficiency of vehicles rather than replacing fuel types in the same vehicle · Currently, tactile fuels are exempt from many government mandates – could specific legislation be passed regarding the military specifically, possibly even the individual branches? · Renewable energy needs to be treated as a long-term investment, not a short-term reward scheme · Could increasing communications between military branches, where there is often subliminal competition, help implement solutions at broader scales with greater success? · How do we convince the people in power and leadership to implement sometimes controversial solutions?
Additional Resources |There are many governmental initiatives underway to research the problem of sustainability in the military. If you are interested, please visit the links below, or look more in depth at the articles cited within this report for plenty of additional information.
The first step to solving a problem is recognizing there is a problem, and the U.S. Military has begun to do just that. In Reenergizing America’s Defense, the Pew Project has recognized a large slew of sustainability problems facing the Military, as well as their linked associations. This matrix of sustainability problems, affecting not only the environment but the economy and national security as well, presents a long road ahead to a solution.
The second step, therefore, is recognizing that for multiple problems, there must be multiple solutions. Inherently, “no single solution can make a considerable impact” on a large number of problems. In order to “Go Fix” the matrix of problems facing the U.S. Military today, we must recognize that every small step is one step closer to reaching our goals, even if it is not perfect. It is solutions at a vast variety of scales and levels of implementation, as well as the addition of all these small steps, that will eventually get us to the infamous “perfect solution.”
STEP 1 | RECOGNIZING THE PROBLEM(S)
“Energy, security, economics, climate change – these things are connected. … it’s a system of systems. It’s very complex.”
- Retired Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, former Army chair of staff and chairman, CNA Military Advisory Board
When did Congress first require the Department of Defense (DoD) to consider the potential effects of climate change on future military missions? Not until 2008. The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act required things such as assessing the risks of climate change, updating defense plans based on these assessments, and developing capabilities to reduce future impacts. The first document published in response to this mandate was the Quadrennial Defense Review Report on February 1, 2010, which addressed “the serious national security challenges presented by climate change and our current energy posture.” Research has led to recognition of a large matrix of problems facing the military, beginning with huge energy burdens and cycling to possible national security risks and economic crises.
So What’s the Problem? |
· DoD accounts for nearly 80% of the U.S. government’s total energy consumption
o 75% is liquid fuels that power aircraft, ships, combat vehicles, and forward deployed generators
· Consumes more than 300,000 barrels of oil per day
o 25% is electricity to run facilities and bases
· Operation of ~600,000 buildings using more than 3.8 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year
· About 70% of the tonnage delivered to an Army battlefield is fuel and water-related
· DoD’s official energy budget in 2008 was $20 billion, but this doesn’t include the “fully burdened cost of fuel”
· The Army uses about 880 million gallons of fuel every year
· The Navy, with 75% of total energy usage from sea operation and 35% for shore operations, uses 25% of DoD’s total use of petroleum
· The Air Force spends about $10 million a day on energy and consumes 2.5 billion gallons of aviation fuel a year
As the list goes on and on, and the stakeholders in these problems are many. Not only is the military, and therefore the government, affected by these problems, but also the businesses and citizens who pay taxes to help fund these projects. Additionally, the citizens will also be affected if these problems do lead to national security risks or resource wars. With such a large energy use, the Military has the ability to have a significant impact on the overall environmental footprint. To move forward, the Military will have to improve within its own infrastructure, as well as work with outside businesses, so begin making small steps toward a smaller carbon “bootprint” [Reenergizing America’s Defense].
STEP 2 | FINDING THE SOLUTIONS [there’s not just one]
Obviously, there is not one simple solution to this long list of problems, and we can’t expect that we will ever find one. Instead, we must look for a variety of small solutions targeted at specific problems. While things like reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy are technically solutions, they don’t really help move forward in solving explicit problems. More detailed, targeted solutions that have a step-by-step approach are much more likely to succeed, and that is the current strategy the Military intends to employ. Each branch of the Military has their own present initiatives, aimed at the same common goals of decreasing energy usage while stabilizing security risks. While many of these initiatives may still be stuck on paper, there are a few small-scale examples of solutions that really work that are already in place.
Implemented Solution 1 | Nellis Air Force Base
Nellis Airforce Base is located just outside of Las Vegas, Nevada, and is currently home to the largest photovoltaic array in the Americas. Of the 140 acres of land, 33 acres were built over a capped landfill, land that would otherwise be unusable. The 72,000 solar panels provide 28% of the base’s power, saving $83,000 per month and 24,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. The public/private partnership features panels from four different companies, each using the data acquired to improve their products [Solar Array].
Utilizing the large areas of flat, open ground for a solar array at Nellis is an excellent example of a solution to energy problems. The desert climate prevents the need for regular cleaning, and the strong solar radiation at this location allows for on-site production of renewable energy credits. Large amounts of land are currently necessary, however, and solar still does not provide the base with 100% of its energy. Yet, the photovoltaic array is one step toward reducing the base’s dependence on the civilian electrical grid, and there is still room to improve.
Implemented Solution 2 | China Lake Geothermal Plant
The Navy also has a renewable energy program evident in the China Lake Geothermal Plant, part of the Naval Air Weapons Center in California. It has been operational since the 1980s and is able to generate nearly twenty times the electricity of the Nellis array. The Marines’ long term goal is to reach “net zero” energy for all of their bases [Defense Sustainability]. Obviously, there are some problems with this solution, as it has not been widely implemented at bases across the country, but it is still a renewable energy alternative being tested on a small-scale that may someday be ready for large-scale implementation.
Implemented Solution 3 | Project Eskimo
“The aim of Project Eskimo was to cover 79 temporary structures, such as containerized living units and tents, with spray-foam insulation, thus cutting down tremendously on air conditioning and heating costs.” Implemented in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, 40-75% energy savings were produced. Fiscally, the project reached its break-even point in less than 180 days, and has saved over $194 million to date. There are plans to expand this simple solution to an additional 9 million square feet of temporary structures throughout Iraq. Savings are not just measured in dollars, but also in gallons of fuel and fully-burdened costs, such as the potential lives saved by transporting less fuel. [Defense Sustainability] Such a simple solution may lead to other advancements within the same field and has implications much larger than straightforward dollars and cents. While there are often a matrix of problems related to sustainability, solutions such as Project Eskimo have a matrix of solution implications, such as economic, environmental, political, and human well-being [Defense Sustainability].
Proposed Solutions | A Variety of Scales
While the above were examples of small scale solutions already implemented by the Military, there are also a very large number of possible solutions that have been recommended by a variety of sources. From the Army’s transition to 4,000 electric vehicles over the next 3 years to the Navy’s testing of algae and camelina-based biofuels for use in jet aircraft to the Air Force’s proposed energy awareness training and educational materials for all its members, there are many good solutions being developed [Reenergizing America’s Defense]. Five additional recommendations were made by Global Green in Defense Sustainability, including:
1. Implement the fully burdened cost of fuel
2. Develop on-site, long-term domestic renewable energy projects
3. Increase forward operating base energy efficiency
4. Integrate tactical fuel efficiency technologies
5. Optimize the use of unmanned vehicles
These are just some examples of proposed solutions by individuals and groups who are beginning to understand the importance of solving one problem at a time, and solving it in a variety of ways. As the Marine Energy Assessment Team says, “What can be measured, can be managed” [Defense Sustainability].
CONCLUSION |
As you can see, there is no one “right” solution to the sustainability problems of the United States Military. In terms of the “Go Fix It” mentality, I am proposing that the solution to Greening the U.S. Military is to recognize and accept that there isn’t one solution. Instead, the solution lies in the infinite number of possibilities that can be applied to every aspect of the problem. While numbers and figures on energy usage can merely be depressing, it is revitalizing to see that steps are being taken to correct these problems. There are certainly issues moving many of the initiatives beyond paper, but at least the paper step is recognizing the existence of the problem.
In conclusion, I would simply like to remark on a few additional solutions and thoughts I realized while researching this topic. Each of these could probably be turned into its own research presentation, and so I would simply like to put some ideas out there for future consideration.
· We must learn to learn from both our successes and our failures, and to see the potential in both
· Viewing the problem in a different light: focus on increasing efficiency of vehicles rather than replacing fuel types in the same vehicle
· Currently, tactile fuels are exempt from many government mandates – could specific legislation be passed regarding the military specifically, possibly even the individual branches?
· Renewable energy needs to be treated as a long-term investment, not a short-term reward scheme
· Could increasing communications between military branches, where there is often subliminal competition, help implement solutions at broader scales with greater success?
· How do we convince the people in power and leadership to implement sometimes controversial solutions?
Additional Resources | There are many governmental initiatives underway to research the problem of sustainability in the military. If you are interested, please visit the links below, or look more in depth at the articles cited within this report for plenty of additional information.
Howard, Courtney E. "A sea change in small electronics." Military & Aerospace Electronics 21.2 (2010): 21-26. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 25 Apr. 2010. http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.rpi.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=6&sid=6a5c861b-4d92-4901-b99d-683906036179%40sessionmgr12
Army Sustainability Report http://www.sustainability.army.mil/news/docs_general/Army_Sustainability_Report_12_02_08.pdf
Military leads march to shrink US carbon 'boot print': study http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MzgyNzk
Military Leads Fight Against Climate Change: Pew
http://www.planetark.com/enviro-news/item/57682
More Fight – Less Fuel http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf
Quadrennial Defense Review Report http://www.defense.gov/QDR/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf
AGENCY GROUP, 09. "SOLAR ARRAY SAVES AIR FORCE ENERGY, MONEY." FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database (n.d.): Military & Government Collection. EBSCO. Web. 25 Apr. 2010. http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.rpi.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=6&sid=f5b5ba0e-f0f7-4cbf-bdf3-7146eb149656%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=32W1058669114
Military Spending Goes Up, Carbon Bootprint Goes Down http://cleantechnica.com/2009/04/10/military-spending-goes-up-carbon-bootprint-goes-down/
COMPLETE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sarah Barnard | Spring 2010